Comment by tecleandor
4 years ago
It'd be great if they pointed to those "please don't merge" messages on the mailing list or anywhere.
Seems like there are some patches already on stable trees [1], so they're either lying, or they didn't care if those "don't merge" messages made anybody react to them.
1 - https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/CADVatmNgU7t-Co84tSS6VW=3N...
The paper doesn't cite specific commits used. It's possible that any of the commits in stable are actually good commits and not part of the experiment. I support the ban/revert, I'm just pointing out there's a 3rd option you didn't touch on.
Patches with built-in bugs made it to stable: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YIAta3cRl8mk%2FRkH@unreal/.
Here's the commit specifically identified by Leon Romanovsky as having a "built-in bug"
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/8e949363f017
5 replies →
Also, they are talking of three cases. However, the list of patches to be reverted by gregkh is far longer than three, more than a hundred. Most of the first batch look sufficiently similar that I would guess all of them are part of this "research". So the difference in numbers alone points to them most probably lying.